The City of Madison may not deny individuals the right to carry handguns in nonsensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or enforce its laws, customs and practices through its police department or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

On Saturday, September 18, 2010, five (5) members of WCI met for dinner at a Culvers Restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin. Each of these individuals was openly carrying a handgun when they arrived at the restaurant, entered the restaurant and ordered and ate their meals. At or about the time that the WCI members finished their meal and left the restaurant, a woman in her car observed them openly carrying handguns and called

911 to report it to the City of Madison Police Department. The 911 caller informed the dispatcher that she didn’t know if it was an emergency, the men were doing nothing wrong and appeared totally relaxed, weren’t threatening anyone and the restaurant was full of people but they each had sidearms and she didn’t know if that was legal.

Upon being informed by the 911 dispatcher that open-carry is legal the woman stated “then there is no problem and its not an emergency”. The dispatcher then suggests that if the woman is concerned or disturbed then it becomes a problem and the woman says “no they weren’t threatening anybody or acting threatening”.

When the dispatcher informs the caller they are sending officers she says “well I feel bad then because they weren’t doing anything wrong”

As these WCI members left the restaurant, they were accosted by eight (8) City of Madison police officers, who demanded that they produce identification, and threatened that if they did not do so, they would be arrested. From the time that these WCI members arrived at the restaurant up to and including the time that the police officers confronted them and demanded that they produce identification or face arrest, none of the WCI members violated any law, nor were they involved in any violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct, nor did they through their conduct cause or provoke any disturbance.

Wisconsin law does not allow officers to arrest for merely refusing to provide ID. 2 days later, Madison Police admitted the error in arresting and charging our members with obstruction, rescinded those tickets and instead, despite there being no disturbance, and no laws broken, issued disorderly conduct charges to all 5 of our members.

The Madison Police Department also issued a press release which relayed a department procedure which would violate the rights of law-abiding open-carriers who would choose to go legally armed for self-defense in Madison. The press release can be read here:

By arresting our members without cause and issuing a press release detailing a policy of violating the rights of other law-abiding open-carriers who should choose to carry in Madison, Wisconsin Carry immediately took action to file a lawsuit to prevent this chilling effect on the right to Carry in Madison. We look forward to the precedent this lawsuit will set.

Those who work, live, or travel to Madison are entitled to the same rights as the rest of the state. Wisconsin has a state and federal constitutionally guaranteed right to carry. Open-carry is the only legal way to carry in this state. Wisconsin’s attorney general verified the legality of open-carry in a memo to all police chiefs and district attorney’s in 2009. The City of Madison may not deny individuals the right to carry handguns in nonsensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or enforce its laws, customs and practices through its police department or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The financial support from across the country extended to Wisconsin Carry which allows us the resources to file this lawsuit has been exceptional. On behalf of WCI, our members, and freedom minded Wisconsinites who embrace the right to carry we wish to offer a special thank-you to Buckeye Firearms Foundation.

BFF is a tax-exempt foundation which collected and matched donations from people across the country totaling over $7,500 through there website:

Wisconsin Carry is a non-profit 100% volunteer organization dedicated to the protection and expansion of the right of law-abiding Wisconsinites to carry in the manner of their choosing; open carry or concealed carry.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest and employer of the first 8 ) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?

The paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they

subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the employer,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible and that is where your job went.

47.606209-122.332071

Share this:

Like this:

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America ‘s true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as “partnering.” Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of your youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics
against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

______________________________________________________________

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed
is that good men do nothing. It’s happening right now.*

Like this:

[She’s got a nice shiny pic on her site posing with the “National Peoples Congress”. Of course, I’m looking into that diabolical group as well, but one of the individuals (out of 5) she’s standing with is Senator Roland Burris, who we all know is a crook.

Norm Dicks and Patty Murray have been embroiled in an FBI investigation for taking hefty donations from a defense lobbying firm that exchanged political contributions for earmarks with more than 100 federal lawmakers. Dicks pushed for nine earmarks worth $20 million for PMA clients in the last few years. In return, he got $84,000 in contributions from PMA and authorities say some of the money came from made-up sources to skirt campaign finance laws.

The Virginia-based lobbying firm, PMA Group, was raided by the FBI and remains under federal investigation for its shady practices and profitable connections in the U.S. Congress. Founded by a former aide to Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha, PMA specializes in getting clients hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks from the veteran legislator who chairs the powerful Defense Appropriations Committee.

Murray, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, requested a pair of earmarks worth nearly $5 million for PMA clients last year. She got $26,000 in PMA donations that we know of. I’m sure there’s more to uncover in this shady deal. I’m busy.

John Albaugh, a longtime senior staff member to Oklahoma Representative Ernest Istook, pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy for accepting gifts, dinners, drinks, thousands of dollars worth of sporting event and concert tickets and campaign contributions from Abramoff who was seeking specific transportation legislation from Congress. Albaugh faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in 2006 to showering lawmakers and members of their staff with upscale European vacations, sports and entertainment tickets, expensive meals and other pricey gifts in exchange for special favors. Among those busted for accepting bribes from Abramoff is Patty Murray for a cool $41,000, which she has, as far as I know, refused to return.

Even Wolf Blitzer and CNN were “picking” on Senator Murray for taking $10,000 in campaign contributions from the executives of Infinia Corp who she earmarked 3 million dollars for in the defense budget…..

Sort of reminds you of the Guardian Marine fiasco and the helmet mounted heads-up display she earmarked for after receiving contributions as well. Those were 17 million and 6 million respectively. You remember those from the Front Line Special on earmarks, don’t you? Guardian built 4 boats that nobody requested or wanted and they ended up getting sold for a dollar. The helmet displays lost the ARMY test trials and Patty got the contract awarded to them anyway and they sit in a warehouse, unused and unauthorized to be used. It appears Patty’s campaign warchest is built on contibutions from daddy war bucks.

Bill Moyers, in a Front Line piece, and CNN with Wolf Blitzer just happened across three instances where Senator Murray was given large sums of campaign contributions in exchange for earmarks worth in excess of 26 Million dollars and they are “picking on her” and “strictly partisan”? Hell, they didn’t even talk about the donations from the tribes she took from Jack Abramoff and then refused to return.

Patty’s number one donor category is the trial lawyers. That should say it all. But it doesn’t. She was, at one point, rated the #1 liberal in Congress.

According to Seattle Weekly

“she even bested Stevens in fiscal year 2008 (Oct. 2007-Sept. 2008), bringing home more than $1.3 billion in earmarks–a total surpassed in the Senate only by New York Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, according to the D.C.-based database Legistorm.com”

“Murray was one of the few Democrats to speak on Stevens’ behalf during a tribute marking his last day in the Senate. She was one of fewer still to publicly defend his infamous “bridge to nowhere” in 2005, threatening her colleagues on the Senate floor that a vote against it would mean a grim future for their own projects.”

“In 2004, as part of its annual “Best and Worst of Congress” edition, D.C.-based Washingtonian Magazine gave her first place in the “No Rocket Scientist” category”

Several individuals have tried to get her staff to investigate OSHA on an scandal that affects the health and safety of millions. Murray was the senior member of the Dept of Labor Oversight Committee at the time. Murray’s staffers were very excited about the issue, and turned ice cold when they found they couldn’t point the blame at Bush, but rather that the issue started during Clinton’s term. After that, they wouldn’t return calls or correspondence, and the problem remains today.

We’ve got work to do to uncover exactly what Murray’s been up to “on our behalf”, but I intend to get to the bottom of every last tidbit. WELL BEFORE the November 2010 elections.

She’d best start polishing up her resume and digging her tennyrunners outta the dark crevices of her closet. I hope she enjoys standing in the employment lines with the rest of us lowly peasants.]

No liberal has standing to call any Republican stupid as long as Patty Murray remains in the U.S. Senate.

Soon after being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, Murray went on a radio show and said:

“When I was growing up, the big fear in my life was the nuclear war. I remember second- and third-grade teachers giving us skills to deal with it, if that big alarm goes off, which was ‘Hide under your desk.’ Would that do any good? I don’t know. But as a child, that gives you a feeling there’s something to do beyond panic. Today the biggest fear our kids live with is whether … the kid beside them has a gun. We have to give them skills so they feel confident to deal with it.” CLICK HERE TO READ ANN’S ARTICLE AT WND

Like this:

I’ve known for a while now that snopes lies, and I’m glad to see others catching on to this scheme. On several different occasions I got an answer from snopes that, after doing further research of my own, found to be leftist lies. Supported and defended by W. Scott Lewis with Campus Carry, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and Concealed Campus. How very sad that those organizations have turned out to be as anti-American as B.O. and his evil regime. I told Scott Lewis TWICE to stop sending me email. He instead chose to send more email, and post in various forums (including Colbert’s!) attempting to demonize and ridicule me and this effort to expose snopes for what they are. He’s a schill for this regime.

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an “Internet Propaganda Arm” pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

For the past few years ( http://www.snopescom/ has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com . It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research.

The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.

Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.